"Warrants authorising phone taps treble"

[David Hansen]

On 3 Feb 2008 at 22:41, Caspar Bowden wrote:

> No, I was typically blunt and specific, and spelled out the difference it
> would make to capabilities for privacy intrusion, and how the appallingly
> (deliberately?) vague wording in the published Bill could mean a number of
> different things. If that was a genuine attempt at drafting clarity, maybe
> it would have been easier with some specific consultation (with explicit
> and genuine choices on offer over authorisation mechanisms)

Such consultation is "dangerous". It runs the risk that those outside 
the tent will get the "wrong" answer. If they do then those inside the 
tent will have to ask them again and perhaps again, until those outside 
the tent get the "right" answer.

-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents 
me   
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54